{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

... time, ladies and gentlemen, we had quite a good laugh, and I think we had the laugh several times. Today I must begin with being serious.

Life does not exist without death. Laughing doesn't exist without crying and weeping at times. This country is sick with too much laughter. And the institutions of the medical profession are filled with people who haven't cried enough. And therefore they cry in these institutions. Most of you are unable to weep.

I went -- attended a -- a famous movie on Peter the Great, and his sweetheart Catherine. And she threw herself over the body of the czar when he was -- seemed to be dying. It was the most moving scene, and the student body laughed. When I asked why they had laughed at the most heart-rending scene of the movie, they were quite embarrassed. And I said, "Well, think it over. We have a week's time, and then tell me the result."

So they formed into committee. And then they said that they had to laugh because were quite sure that never in their own life would they cry as this woman cried over the body of her -- of the czar, of her sweetheart.

Well, I think that's a very typical American story. And it shows that we are lopsided; that the geometrical method of Mr. Spinoza and Mr. D‚scartes has led you--because you are all the heirs of these -- thinkers--has led you to believe that in a -- in a community, people have to laugh with each other. I assure you, the -- that's not true. They have to cry with each other. And the complete impotence of all of you to attend a funeral in a dignified manner shows that you do not know that life cannot be lived without death, and therefore laughter not without crying. Learn to cry and you will always have reason to laugh. But if you omit crying, in your married life, for example--you will get a divorce. -- Husband and wife have to cry together if they want to be happy. That they laugh together--that's cheap, that's -- children do this, too.

The difference between serious life and -- and, for example, college life as we here today have it, is that in a college, it's -- everything is play. Scholasticism, scholarship is -- is a play. It's a very nice play, a very useful play, a very important play. I think I am a very important person, of course. Everybody thinks this. But I am just a professor. And that's not serious in the sense that life depends on it. I can't kill you; I'm not threatening you with real danger. We are playing around here--with serious things; I grant you this. But still leisure, study, scholarship--that's all only semi-serious.

And that's why in the geometrical method of the last 300 years, the learned profession--the philosophers, the theologians--have been able to make us believe that it is not a question of life or death to speak or to be silent. But since real life consists of a process of life that involves dying, of course all real speech, all vital speech leads to crying or laughter. That is, it leads to excesses of feeling. It is dangerous. It is mortal. It is life-giving. Or it is nothing. And I am afraid most of you have too much experience of college -- of schools, of examinations, of newspapers, of movies; and you mistake the gossip and the talk that goes on in all these activities for being real speech. It isn't. It's an imitation of speech. It's the practicing of speaking; it's -- an exercise. So that in the decisive moments of life, you may find the right word which is needed to distinguish life and death.

Pardon me for being so serious, but I have to balance the jokes of last time with some warning that if we here in a classroom dare to touch on reality, we have to be full of reverence for the dangers of life: for death, cruelty, prisons, murder, war, lust--everything that endangers your own existence.

There are two great, vital processes with which one cannot joke, but which give us every reason to cry. That is the confusion between sex and love on the one-hand side, and that matters for every woman. And that is -- the danger, you see, that men go to war with each other--class war, political war, religious war. Enmity that leads to war, and lust that destroys love are the two serious businesses of life. The difference between lust and love and the difference between peace and war is the topic of today.

Because I want to show you that -- under the grammatical method, it is possible to distinguish between love and lust, between sex and -- love; and between peace and war. This is very hard for you to understand, that this is really dependent on the use of words, of real speech, that we know the distinction between love and lust--or "sex," as you call it. "Sex" is not the right word because sex is simply an -- individual's aptitude to realize love. Lust is the situation in which love is abused, remains on a lower range. Sex is only the instrument of this lust. I -- it would be clearer if we would -- you would never use the word "sex" in your own life. It is not dignified enough. Because the problem of loving each other, of course, is a problem of -- social living, of co-existence, of unity, of society. Sex is the aptitude of an individual body to take part in this great process of -- love.

Therefore, I mean, people who come from the zoological garden and from Darwinism and from all these strange mathematical ideas about reality, they call -- the highest power of society--of founding a government, of founding a family, of founding a university--they call this "sex." Don't do it. It's a ridiculous term. My -- the aptitude of my body to take part in the process of love can go wrong,

and then I am just lustful. Or it can go right, and then I am in love. But when you eat a good -- a good dinner, you don't speak of your stomach. But you say that you like to eat. So why should you use the organs of sex, you see, in order to determine what love is? It's im- -- we don't mention it, as you -- wouldn't do. When you speak, you use your mouth and your lips. But it makes no sense to speak -- you see, to call "speech" the movement of your lips. That's not speech.

So the greatest illness I have to fight at this moment with you is that you really have -- are taught all the time that love and sex can be exchangeable, or in some way are identical. As little as speech is identical with your tongue, or your lips, so little is love -- has anything to do with sex. It's the -- sex is the normal condition of any person to participate in this tremendous creative process of loving. But that's all. As long as you call these things "sexual behavior," I mean, you are certainly lower than the louse.

And you will be sick. All people who speak of "six" -- "sex" abuse the -- language. Because just as the urine and the -- the di- -- colo- -- digestive processes of your -- of your stomach and your intestines isn't -- tasteful to mention in good society, so shouldn't sex be something to be mentioned. It is there, yes--but as a means.

How can I prove now that the great distinction between the animal kingdom and men is that in our case, words have to be spoken in order to allow us to love; words have to be spoken to allow us to live in peace? Why is lust or destruction--like prostitution--and why is war the result of not speaking? Well, very simple. You know that when war breaks out, people are no longer on speaking terms. So language itself gives -- says this very clearly. The distinction between peace and war is that people are on speaking terms at peace, and in war they are not.

However, that isn't enough as of this moment, because you have this terrible habit not only to mention "sex" in relation to love, you also say that you "make love," and that you "make war." And that comes from the animal kingdom again. It has very little to do with men. Man does not make love; and man does not make war. If he does, he is an animal. And he must go wrong, and he must go to the psychoanalyst to learn that his sex has gone wrong. If you think that you can make love, you abuse language. You declare love, and you accept the declaration of love.

And because people hate the word, hate language, hate speech, hate the grammatical method of living together as persons, so therefore they have invented this lower-grade animal existence of "making love" and of "making war." If you don't declare your love, you don't know what love is. Because one state of

affairs, one moment in the history of every loving experience is that it has to be said. Somebody has to say to you, "I love you," and you have to accept it and believe him in order to know that you are in love. That is, the grammatical method has one tremendous distinction compared to the physicist's idea of reality.

Among the vital processes of living--among breathing, eating, sleeping--there is one action that is a part of vitality: speech. And the highest moment in your love is exactly that moment in which you are able, or your -- your man is -- capable of convincing you that he now has to say it, that you -- that he is in love, and you have to accept it. Of course, in this country, usually the girl says it and he accepts it.

But beware. I mean, although I -- have been joking on this point, it is very serious. That -- a love that cannot be declared is impotent. It may be sex. But these people who go to bed with each other without speech, without singing --. Sex without sin -- song is sin. You can take this down. That's my -- I'm the author of this, but it's a good verse, just the same. Sex without song is sin. Everything is forgiven to the illegal, illegitimate, unmarried lovers who sing. That's innocence. The -- the legitimacy of love does not depend on the marriage formality. But that a man's soul and a woman's soul meet in song, that makes their physical behavior innocent.

With a prostitute, you cannot -- a man cannot sing. She will artificially whistle or sing--the poor woman--because she's degraded. But he cannot call her by -- a name. Too many people do the same. It's too cheap. Therefore, it's an awful situation, you see. It's sick. That's why prostitution is impossible. It is a deep sickness of the human soul if a person goes to a woman without being able to sing out her name and to -- to transfigure her very -- her bodily existence into something -- angelic, something heavenly, something only to express by poetry and song.

If you read the -- the Song of Songs of -- of -- in the Bible, it's in the Bible for this very reason--that it shows where innocence comes from. It comes from man's power to sing about his love. And it is the greatest -- perhaps the greatest fact that the Bible contains this song, which is of a purely--in the religious sense, I mean, the ecclesiastical sense--of a purely secular character. And yet it is the greatest sacrament of all: love sung out loudly, singing out loudly, and redeeming, therefore, all our earthly existence, you see, in this poetry, in this song. And from my -- for my judgment, the -- the Song of Songs is, so to speak, the seal under the divine character of the Bible, and nothing else. Not the stories.

Because what do you -- we want? We want to be divine in our most real,

earthly existence. And love, which you degrade into sex, is the divine power that make us representing -- -tation -- representative of the future, representative of the meaning of life--when we can sing. As any bird will -- prove to you, too, who sings his passion, like the nightingale.

Sex without song is sin. The borderline between love and sex does not run between marriage and -- and non-marriage. There can be -- can be the sacrament of love between people who have not -- have no reason to go to the town clerk. And you can go to 10 churches--Anglican, Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Jewish--and the rabbi and the priest will not be able to marry you. Because it's a sacrament that husband and wife have to give to each other by their power to sing to each other. That's marriage. And nothing else can replace it.

One of the diseases of our time is that you think these formalities--going to the cathedral and having 10 bridesmaids, you see, in -- in their dresses--that this is love. It's a semblance of love. It's perfectly legitimate if you have song to -- sung to each other. Then you can also go through these decorations. No reason why you shouldn't. But don't believe that the candles on the -- the doilies, the candles on a table, and the Holy Mass and so, that they can replace your own power of the two lovers to sing to each other the -- in divine grace and in divine transfiguration.

That's why so many marriages are loveless. They are impotent. They are sexual. Or they are routine, or what have you, I mean. Or they are willful. You see, singing is an unvoluntary action. It cannot be forced by willpower. That's why I warn you: wherever there is will in your relation to a man, don't marry him. You will go wrong, and he will be unhappy and you will be unhappy. Marriage is the surrender of your own will, and it is the one application of the "Our Father," of the great prayer of Jesus, you see: "Thy will be done," and not mine. Nobody likes to be reminded in his highest moments of this simple rule that as long as you will, it's not the divine will. The divine will only comes into play if you abandon your own will, if you renounce it, if you are so low in -- that you say, "I -- my will doesn't count."

And the grammatical method is a cure against the tragedy of the last 300 years, where more and more women have imitated -- the male sex by saying, "My will be done and nobody else's." It's called self-reliance and some other such nonsense. How can a man in love be self-reliant? He's a victim. He can only pray that the -- the gods may be merciful with him, in his passion, in his servitude, in his humility.

So "to make love" is an abuse of terms. And as long as you use it, you desecrate love. Nobody must make love. And nobody who is a singer, or a poet,

or a believer, or a powerful -- a really potent man, will say that he makes love. Because he would degrade his greatest faculty of being eloquent. Do you think I make the truth while I am talking to you here? That would be scandalous! I have to undergo; I have to admit; I have to declare.

And here come -- we come to the important expression that love has to be declared. And the language has these two expressions: that a declaration of war makes for a civilized nation, and if you omit the declaration of war, you are barbarian. And the same is true abut love. A love without declaration is not complete. It has not reached this -- moment of maturity, this high point.

Now mark you well. This may seem to you very simple. But if you really follow me: the giving up of the expression, "to make love," and the adoption of my term, "to ex- -- declare love," is the difference between two worlds of thinking: the last 400 years of humanity in Europe -- in America and the future, without which men will perish.

Why is that so? Because in your estimation--and you have learned it this way in your schools--to declare is not an act of the process itself. Here are things going on and now you explain it to somebody, and this you may call your declaration of faith. But the Creed, ladies and gentlemen, for example, in church: "I believe in God Almighty: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is of course a part of your maturing in your faith. A man who can speak out, "I believe," is so filled with this experience, has so far matured, that now the state in which he has to live, and on which he has to grow, is declaration. Love has one moment inside itself in which it wouldn't be love, if it wouldn't be -- lead to a declaration. So the declaration is a moment of living, as going to bed with a man is a moment of your inclination to live with him.

This is hard for you to understand. You have learned the opposite. You have learned that if -- when I write something here at the blackboard, that does not add to the act which I write on here. If I say here "war," you think that this term "war" has nothing to do with the real war. It's purely descriptive, as you call it, you see. The declaration of war between America and Korea--North Korea, for example--however, is an act in the war itself. It's a part of the process. To speak is an hour in the life of mankind. It's a moment in your own existence. You must not separate doing and speaking about it. The enemy of any understanding of language is this word "about." Most people think "about" things. That's perfectly unnecessary, and perfectly superfluous, and very damaging. Don't think about things. But if you have to decide whether this boy is the right boy, you see, that's not thinking about something, you see; but that's approaching maturity, approaching that moment when you will surrender and say, "It has to be. Unfortunately." And the more you weep about it, the more serious it is.

Life, real life, is never pleasurable. It's serious. If you try to joke about it, it won't help. It remains serious. Because all life in the end leads to death. And you can miss the bus, and you can do very wrong. It's -- it's not just like tossing a coin. It's the decision of your whole future life, of your whole one, single, unique existence: when you declare that you are willing to follow this man. And no four divorces will help you in this. It will be four times death.

So -- declaration in the grammatical method is an act of vitality, of life. And how else could it be? If speech has to do with life and death, and if you can, over the telephone even, recognize--as I told you last time, whether a man is a suicide candidate or whether he is just playing around with suicide, because you just hear, you see, whether his voice is going up into life or is going down into destruction--if this is possible over the telephone for the Salvation Army to decide whether a man is a candidate for suicide or not, then you can imagine that to speak is itself a potent act of life. It is as a flower that blossoms up and bears fruit. And so we human beings have, in the midst of our life, before we bear children, and before we create, have this moment in which we mature to the utterance, to the confirmation, to the affirmation, to the statement, that we are ripe to marry, to commit ourselves.

And of course a marriage between two -- husband and wife is not the whole story. You can marry a party. You can marry your country. Lincoln -- Abraham Lincoln, obviously when he became president at the most unfortunate moment of the life of the nation, you see, entered a sacrament with the American nation and he certainly has fulfilled it unto this death. And that's -- is his -- his inaugural. And if you read his inaugural address, that's not talk about America--that's one moment in which America herself matured; in which this man was the mouthpiece of America herself. There is nothing outside the Second Inaugural of Abraham Lincoln, you see, to which you can point to explain what the United States are. He explained it, didn't he? And this explanation is the United States to this day.

I hope you all know the Second Inaugural. It is quite -- wrong, I think, that it is less famous than the Gettysburg Address. It's a much greater speech, because it's a sacramental speech. It's the speech in which Lincoln for all of you and me has explained who we are, that there is a higher will governing the United States than this little bit of a president of the United States.

Theodore Roosevelt once was asked to make peace--"to make peace," you see, it's a very good -- wrong word again--to make peace between Japan and Russia in 1905. I always tell this story because it has the same sublimity -- as Lincoln's Second Inaugural, but it's quite unknown. It's in no book. His ambassador in St. Petersburg in Russia wrote to Lincoln, and he said -- to -- to Theodore

Roosevelt and said, "These people are exhausted. Couldn't you arbitrate the peace?"

As you know, he did, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The peace was made -- it is called the Peace of Portsmouth. So the American president did it. But why did he do it? Because he was under God. In a very strange manner this came out. He wrote to the ambassador: "Dear Lengerke Meyer: I am, as a president of the United States, not inclined to arbitrate between Russia and Japan as it is not to the interests of the United States that these two nations remain very strong. If they now would -- bleed white, we would have an easier time on earth"--as the third party, you see. "But," he goes on, "the president of the United States has too sacred an office. He cannot simply act as president of the United States. He has to act as an agent of humanity. And therefore, of course, although it is not in the interests of the United States, I have to help these people to make peace."

Now I think we can be very proud of this. And if you would tell the -- the Birch Society this, they wouldn't understand. They would not understand. They have left humanity for some candy. But that's the real issue today for all the nations. Do they recognize a code that is greater than the nation? If they can't recognize this, they have to perish, as Hitler did. Any nation that denies today that the leader of this nation has obligations that are non-national destroys humanity. And the days of the -- of the jet and of the -- Sputnik, no national statesman can afford to be just a national statesman. I assure you this is true. And this is very important to know.

And you must despise people who don't know this. And as you saw in Hunter now, with this boy who said he would place Mr. Kennedy in the gas chamber, you see, that's the consequence. This man thinks he is only interested in American interests. As soon as he tries to do this today, he must become a murderer; he must become a destroyer, because nothing that you think up for the salvation of the United States today is good enough anymore. Love is universal. Peace is universal. So it won't do.

I want you to read for the next time the great parallel to President Theodore Roosevelt's remark on the peace between Russia and Japan. It's a poem that is the most revolutionary poem ever written in the United States. And nobody seems to know it. I have paid a hundred Marks--German Marks--to my class in -- in Cologne la- -- this winter, where I taught in the -- American history for the best translation, because I thought it was so important. And I got the translation. Now I won't pay you a hundred Marks because you don't have to translate it. It's written in English. But you don't know it. It's Emerson's poem, "Give All to Love." And it's the great self-denying ordinance of love. And it will explain to

you if you read it--and I want you to read it for the next time -- for next Monday, "Give All to Love" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. It will explain to you that one cannot make love. It's the great declaration of a love that omits the lover. It's very tragic, but it's very great. It is the one great prophetic poem on love.

Love has been cheapened. I mean, you just think of all the cheap songs on "I love you," and I -- and so on. That isn't love. Love--real love, sacred love, divine love--begins only when the lover is really self-forgetful. And it may be that we will come on Monday to the conclusion that Emerson's poem goes too far. It is a frightful poem. And I hadn't believed that this mild-mannered gentleman from Concord, New Ham- -- Massachusetts, was capable of such a heroic poem. But we'll also see on Monday that Emerson, in a strange manner, has prophesied a kind of love that at that very moment revived Europe in one special and unique case of love. The poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson, written in Concord, New Hampshire, by and large in 1847, and the love story of the greatest lover of the 19th century in Europe 20 years later, are like two halves of the same piece. And it makes you feel oddly that divine love is universal, and that an American poet can prophesy and express a kind of love that was lived across the ocean in Europe. I want to leave it at that, as -- the moment to make your mouth water.

It is completely unnoticed among the poems of Emerson in this country because Americans had not the fulfillment in fact, in real-life history. So you nowhere find any remark on it in all the literary -- with all the literary critics and books on -- on literature in this country, which is very strange. But it is also quite understandable. Prophecy als- -- only imposes on us when it is fulfilled. And if you have a prophetic poem, you see, of a new kind of love, and you don't know that it has been fulfilled in a great manner, of course you remain indifferent because the prophecy seems to be just out of this world, and -- unreal and arbitrary. Well, we'll -- I'm -- shall try to show you in -- on Monday how remarkable it is that this man Emerson could speak, could explain, could declare a kind of love which at that moment, so to speak, had to be lived by necessity in a unique case of higher or sublime love, with great sacrifices on all sides.

Love without sacrifice is not love, and you all want to love without sacrifice. And so most of you don't -- are unable to love. Love and sacrifice go together because love unites mankind. And the sacrifice only means that the hindrances of this love, or of this peace, which is the same, have to vanish. To sacrifice for love means to make -- love possible. And that always costs a price. We all live in dead-end streets. We all have sides to us which prevent this love to operate.

You can only think of any couple who have to give up certain specialities on their own side--family ties, or what-not, you see; riches. I mean, the poor rich man usually can't live -- love. So he'd better give up -- his riches, which is not

very popular in this country. but it should be.

Sacrifice and love go to each other bec- -- belong to each other because love is the future; and sacrifice means to sacrifice, to give up for the future that which stands in the way from the past. And the declaration of love is that strange moment in which we become aware that our love will cost a price, and we declare that nothing is too dear to be sacrificed. That's the content of a declaration of love. When a man says, "I am willing to marry you," he gives up all his adventures of love, of love-making. He gives up -- his wild oats, and he says, "It's enough. I shall hold out and stay with you," which is renunciation, which is a sacrifice.

You ladies don't seem to know this, anymore. But any man sacrifices his freedom when he gets married. And he shouldn't do this too early, and he shouldn't do it without ultimate necessity. Don't catch him. It won't work. He must be ready to sacrifice his freedom. Many boys, you see, don't know what they are doing when they say -- then they surrender to you nowadays. A man -- a boy of 20, as I see it, cannot possibly marry, because he doesn't know what he sacrifices, you see. A man who proposes to you must know that he sacrifices something big: his freedom; his right to change; his right to have no profession as yet, but to wait another 10 years until he becomes the great man. If you marry him too young, you will pay the penalty that he has never been able to declare your love -- his love to you, really. He has not made a declaration of love, but the semblance of it. He has said the necessary words, or not -- not said anything, and you did the -- the speaking. It will all be -- come home to you.

Nobody can omit the declaration of love in the process of falling in love. And the same is true of peace.

We have a famous man today in the world. He's -- he died here in New York two years ago. That's Teilhard de Chardin, the cosmologist, the Jesuit. You might have heard his name. He's quite popular, as though he was a movie star. The poor man is not at fault in this, but it's very strange that he should be so popular, because he proclaims that all life, since the beginning, is the same. And he doesn't distinguish between the lust between two birds or two animals, and the love between two people. Speech has no place with this man. And I think he's all wrong. It's the great heresy. It's very funny that a Jesuit should be guilty of this greatest of heresies, to omit for human life this whole process of becoming vocal. Life between you and the rest of the world has to become voice. If it cannot -- you cannot invoke life, you don't know what life is.

Dead things are not invoked. And so the word which I want you to take over from me today to explain the declaration of love, and the declaration of

peace, and the conclusion of peace is this word, "invocation," "convocation," "advocation" -- are all words that use the word "voice" in such a strong manner that you still can feel that the person is in the voice, that it isn't thinking about something else, you see, from the outside. It's not descriptive. But when we invoke, we run the full risk of the situation that if we not sp- -- do not speak enthusiastically, as though God was speaking through us at this moment, we cannot fulfill the act. The act itself depends on this moment of becoming utterance.

Some of you will still know that there exists a book called the Bible, and that there is something said about incarnation, that the Word must become incarnate; that the Word became flesh. That's why we call Jesus "divine" because He is the Word become flesh.

Now all of us, of course, are under duty to do just this: to incarnate. The Word begins: your name at baptism or at birth is given you, and you have to realize it. And what you are later, if you are lucky, is the carrying out of your messa- -- mission in life under this name. And you will be quoted under this name after your death because it is your name now, after you have incarnated it.

But I think at this moment, as it is with all the Gospel and all the religious traditions of the human race at this moment, we have to turn around also and have to say that invocation is that physical utterance by which the spirit can only enter reality. So we begin not with the word which has become flesh, but with the physical utterance, the experience, the voice, the tonality, the tone of voice, of which we spoke last time, as an argument, as a proof, that the spirit is ready to enter creation.

I prefer then the -- to the sentence, "The word that becomes flesh," this sentence, you see: "That man only can fulfill the tasks of his life if they become invokable. If he is provoked to invoke this moment, the God of love asks you to support Him by saying so."

A man who says he is in love has fallen on evil days. He will have no rest at night. But he is deified, he is the carrier of a message that has to enter the world. And if he is the right lover, the word changes from his invocation of the God of love.

One -- one example--I have to be brief--will show you that I am not exaggerating. Today the difference between two loving couples is between -- one couple that is capable of emigrating and the other that is incapable. Innumerable divorces followed Hitler's victory in Germany, because the half-baked marriages broke up. They got a divorce. One husband left, the oth- -- one partner left, the other

stayed. And so on and so forth, many varieties.

There are many marriages undergone in this country today where you know very well that they could not leave even New York. They are just New Yorkers, which is a disease, anyway.

And -- the touchstone of a full-fledged marriage, where a man stands in the place of God as a creator himself as of this moment, you see, where the ecstasy of love is the representative act of the creator that wants this couple now to go on continuing His work; the proof of it is: can they emigrate? If they can't leave Russia, or China, or America, they cannot really get married. The sacrament of love depends on the power of the two to forget everything else, and to be the founder of a new nation. Abraham is the great example, who founded a new nation just by marrying. Very simple; having one son, Isaac--not very much--was enough.

You'll always look into big statistics for politics. Do you think that these headlines in the New York Times make any sense? You see, this -- chewing over conferences, world conferences, mountain conferences, valley conferences? It's all nonsense, I mean. Do you think that any of these statesmen can change the world at all? They are perfectly lame. Not one of them can do anything.

But if you marry the right person, that's a revolution. That's something that has nothing to do with the United States or China, because it defies the -- China and the United States. Any one human being that enters into a fullfledged marriage is a messenger of creation in a world of paper and telephones.

This is very simple. And you can grade the married couples around you according to the degree of sanctity of their unity. If they can emigrate together, and it doesn't matter, then they are married. And I -- fortunately I ha- -- I am happy to say there are more people who are capable of this than you would expect. But they are dying out by our college system. Because, ladies and gentlemen, in co-education you don't learn to -- to declare your love under the greatest difficulties. To declare love must be not only time-consuming, but it must be dangerous. There must be conflicts; there must be impediments; there must be obstacles. And the higher the obstacle that you jump over, you see, in accepting the courtship of a man, the safer you are in testing whether it's real love. And I am against this co-educational business, not because I have anything against your meeting boys as often as you like, day and night, but because marriage has to overcome distance. It has to overcome mountains.

Now if you are no accustomed to sit next to each other, it becomes a family affair. And girls -- sisters should not marry their brothers. Pardon me for

saying so. The great danger of our modern society is incest in a spiritual sense. What is incest, you see? Incest very simply -- very important to know about, you see. When you have already called somebody your "friend," or your "brother," or your "cousin," or your "neighbor," he is not fit to become your husband. Because the husband must be the man who -- receives his name for the first time, and the -- vice versa. For the man -- the girl, he must see, you see, and fall in love with as though he had never seen anything like her before.

Now I am quite serious. You think it over, yourself. Everybody knows this, by the way. But very few people, I mean, do anything. And the whole educational system in this country never mentions this simple fact that: what are schools, and what's coeducation, and what is examination? That's all a minor matter. The human race demands love, and the declaration of love in a highly, high-strung, poetical, and sacramental manner; and therefore it has to be difficult.

It has to be difficult that you find each other. If it is too simple, too convenient, it may be anything, but it won't be marriage. And you won't be able to emigrate.

And there is nobody safe today in this world. It can happen to anybody, that he is provoked and that he has to invoke the gods to give him the power to be really married. As any man in a profession. If he is a doctor, he will have to invoke the doctor of medicine to stand the temptations of the chemical industry, which will sell to the doctor today anything, you see, if he betrays his -- his knowledge and his science, for example.

So there is not one place in the world where the declaration of your profession, of your status, doesn't make demands on you to break away from the gods of the marketplace, not to do the easy thing. And how do you -- how do you meet this? How do you find out about this?

Very simple. All things of Madison Avenue, all advertising, you see, can lie, can exaggerate, can sell you stuff in brilliant colors, you see, although it's a very simple thing you finally buy, because there is a commodity and you pay money for it, and you can't go quite wrong. He gives you something for your money immediately, you see. Here is -- here is the juke box and there is the advertising. The juke box had its par- -- the advertiser says, "It's paradise," but the juke box just isn't paradise, and you might just as well know it. If you buy it, just the same, no complaint, you see. You were the fool.

Advertising, then, diminishes the seriousness of speech. He is a fool who takes the advertising seriously, obviously. There must be -- sales resistance, as

they call it. Doesn't -- isn't that true? Isn't that the expression? And you are lost if you don't resist the salesman's argument.

Now in the declaration of love, the very opposite prevails. What this boy tells you, you must believe, although he has no proof. He -- you must believe that he will be -- faithful to you for 50 years. You must believe that he will make good. You must believe that he is a man who stands by his word. How can you know? There is absolutely no commodity which he delivers, you see. There are no goods which he can sell at this moment.

The opposite two situations then prevail in advertising, and in the declaration of peace and love. The very opposite. Of course, language was invented, created, and was necessary for these great moments where the speech takes the place of the act. I told you -- tried to tell you this: that at one moment the declaration of love is the act of loving, you see, in its mature and conscious state. In advertising, it's the very opposite. There the commodity is the saving grace, you see. And the words are empty.

Now I don't have to tell you that you live at a moment of the world's history in which advertising tries to take the place of real speech. I just read an advertising of Look--I don't have -- didn't put it in my pocket--on Library Work -- Week. You see, "Words are magic, words are wonderful." And they may -- well may be, but I won't trust Look. That's no proof. Advertising is no proof of the truth of anything.

So you must learn to distinguish elated speech, where a man speaks at the risk of his whole future, at the risk of death. You see, Jesus could not say He was the Messiah in the ordinary course of events. When He admitted it, it was at the moment in which He was condemned to die. A coward would have -- {poofed} back and said, "Oh yes, I said that I was the Messiah on the mountain to my apostles. They were fools; they believed me. But you, dear Pilate, you mustn't believe me. Please let me off. I didn't mean it."

Now that's advertising language. The real language of a man is not to say these big things in playlike fashion to the Apostles, you see, when it costs nothing, but to say it under danger of life, when it cost His life.

And this is lost on you. Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry to say: in this country, you have no book; you have nothing; you have no sermon in which this distinction between cheap language, plus commodity, is distinguishable from declaration of love, or war, or making peace -- concluding peace, in -- when it is serious, and when you have no other proof but the trust in another man's word.

That's a very difficult thing. And you should not trust a man without some great labors of -- and travail. That's why Hercules, you see, had to commit -- to -- to 12 great deeds before he could be trusted as being a divine hero. Ask from your man to do something before you trust him. These silly words which they -- tell you and so, that's empty stuff.

A -- a lover is a person who is willing to sacrifice for his love his whole future, or to arrange his future in tune with this vocation, with this -- with this message he has to convey. And it isn't so difficult, I think, if you practice this a little, if you distinguish the windbag from the prophet.

But the strange thing on which I wish to end is this: a man who can ask to be believed in what he says, to me the person who says this -- and -- to be a liar who quotes somebody else, is a man who throws himself into this word and says, "You can quote me on this." Innumerable times have I seen people in this country prevaricate, desert the good cause by saying, "You are absolutely right. But if you quote me on this, I shall deny it."

This denial is of course the Devil. And it stalks around here with great pride. Most men I know in the -- big cities in this country don't find anything wrong in telling me, "You are absolutely right. But if you quote me on this, I shall deny it." This was in former days called the Devil. And it is the Devil. The Devil is the man who says one thing and does another.

And all life breaks down under the impact of this lack of incarnative power of the word. Now the word is powerful and potent when he who says it obeys it. That's why an oath and a vow are certainly more important than all articles by Walter Lippmann.

I am quite serious. It is a great scandal that a man like this for 20 years can be -- make himself heard, and has been wrong on every one issue in the last 20 years. But he is an elegant writer. It's just dabbling in words. He has never stood up for anything he has said and said, "Because I said it, I now have to pay the penalty." Never. And that is destructive.

I -- you had such a man, Arthur Brisbane. He was, of course, the great idol of this country in -- in journalism, you see. He could say every day something different, and he got away with murder, and he earned $227,000 a year.

With the untruth and the Devil, there is always money. It's -- to make money is easy when you lie.

Love is without reward in the outer world. To throw yourself behind your

own saying and say, "I said it; therefore I will do it," that is life. But it is divine and therefore it has very little room on earth.

Thank you.